|
But that's the point: the voting system should help people find the good vs the bad, but if a crappy article is posted and the author's friends, family and debtors vote for it, then we have a crappy article with a huge up-vote count. Another article that's brilliant but written by an introvert and gets only "natural" upvotes may have less upvotes than the weighted article.
The worst bit being: there's no way for anyone to do anything about the crappy article if there's no downvoting. We could, if we chose to go the StackOverflow route, simply delete any article that was below a certain threshold.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting, I take it as that option 2[^] isn't a viable option then.
But I don't think option one is the only option, even if it's the most probable one if you really want people to actually vote more.
So what alternatives are there? Well, one I can think of goes together with making reports public. Make everything public.
Then you would let people see how everyone votes which makes retaliation voting/reporting less likely to happen as soon as people understand it's not anonymous.
It goes both ways and will become self regulating after a short time of "chaos"
The drawback is of course that downvoting is still less likely to happen in general so the skewed result will still remain, but at least less so.
This should probably be combined with a rep limit of say 1000 points for being able to report at all, to limit the usability of sock puppet accounts.
That said, I still believe anonymizing votes is the best way to get more votes in general.
And we just need to accept the fact that upvoting by friends and downvoting based on grudges will never go away.
modified 14-Jan-15 8:15am.
|
|
|
|
|
Making votes fully public is where I'm leaning. It won't help us decide who's a sock puppet / friend, but it may make people think a little before random downvoting, and I'd probably combine it with the removal of the need to comment on a downvote.
A refined option: you get to see who voted if you yourself agree to have your votes made public. That way you choose. Still mulling this one over but it has it's pros/cons.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I believe the refined option is not very functional.
If you have Adam who decides to opt in, and Bob who decides to opt out, and they both decides to report each other.
Will they both see each others report despite Bob opting out, or will both see nothing despite Adam opting in?
All or nothing I say. I'm content both ways, but don't make it halfbaked.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah - it's leaky.
My thinking was that those who care about downvotes would be given the choice to see who downvoted them, but that would in turn mean their downvotes (and upvotes) would be visible. This may give them pause to retaliate with votes of their own.
Of course the only way this works is if you don't allow someone to opt-out of public votes once they opt in, and it also means that they could then just setup sock puppets to attack a downvoter.
The sock puppet angle kinda kills most of the solutions one can come up with, unless you then say "no votes until X rep points" which then means you punish all new members for the sake of a very, very small minority.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: unless you then say "no votes until X rep points" which then means you punish all new members for the sake of a very, very small minority.
There are already a lot of rep based access rights in place, I don't see this as a dealbreaker. But I would limit it to reports, it should be ok for low reps to vote, they anyway have a lower weight as it is already.
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting is already rep-limited.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
It solves the personal ego problems but totally breaks the ability to automatically filter out the dross. Article scores become weighted by the absolute count of how many friends / admirers a person has and hence cannot be used to compare the quality of two similar articles. Downvoting allows others to balance the "likes" and enables us the ability to order articles.
What you're proposing is basically: remove the voting system and just let people give you a thumbs up regardless of quality.
I'm not keen on that.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I think it would balance out a lot better than the current system, but whatever.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: think it would balance out a lot better than the current system
I am just struggling to see how.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but I totally disagree. Many times I'll quickly glance at an article to see if it is something I need. It would be unpleasantly bothersome to have a popup every time I left an article.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
An idea that's been floating around in my head for a while now, is the possibility of having a place for users to register ideas for articles that they'd like to see. This way, authors can see what topics people are interested in, and submit an appropriate article or three on the topic. Ideally, they would register an interest in the article so that posters could see that their ideas were being considered (not necessarily who was going to write them, merely something along the lines of "3 authors interested").
|
|
|
|
|
We actually had this years and years ago and it was never used. Suggestions were made, sure, but the follow up was very, very low.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
There are a lot more authors now.
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen a lot of requests like this on forums (even received requests on my email) "Dear sir, please give me code to ...".
So, Pete, I don't think that is a good idea. People should publish about things they excel, not what the audience is asking.
modified 20-Jan-15 8:30am.
|
|
|
|
|
Just because an article idea is asked for, it doesn't mean you have to pick it up. Plus, there may be someone who excels in that area who didn't think anyone would be interested in it. Like QA, the requests would be moderated so that it doesn't just become "Gimme Codez Urgntz."
|
|
|
|
|
I am still not getting notification for a replay to a post. I do get the newletter.
|
|
|
|
|
Have you checked the setting in your profile, under the Forums tab, titled Send me an e-mail if someone replies to the message.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, did that after the first reply did not send. (and a couple of times since) Maybe I will try a new email address and see if the email is blocked.
|
|
|
|
|
I've made a couple of changes under the Newsletter & Emails tab of MySettings for your account.
This should fix you up.
|
|
|
|
|
Changed my email address but did not get a message about the change, changed it back and got the notification message. We will see how that goes.
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
Success! Finally got a reply and also got the email.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two posts down from this - looks like an issue with the moderation queue.
|
|
|
|
|
And he does not appear in MVP list this year.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
